Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS=NT BOARD Award No. 8032
SECOND DIVISION Docket No, 7785
2..SOO-CM- '79



( System Federation No, 7, Railway Employer'
( Departments A. F. of Z, - C, I. 0,
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)



Dispute: Claim of Employes:



































Form l Page 2

Find ir~;s:

Eino Jurve7.a_n 3: 30 to ll; 30 Shift Stinson Yd.

Oct , 15

Oct. lb

Norman Hantala

Oct , 15

Oct. 16
Order fox Work 6;00 am,
4: 00 pm. to 11: 00 in,

Award No. 8032
Docket No. 7785
2-soo-CM- '79

L:30 to 3:30 Pm. 3 hrs. time & Z/2
11:30 to 12 midnight 1/2 hr, time & l/2

6:00 am. to 3:30 1M. 9 l/2 hrs. time & l/2
total 13 hrs. time & 1/2 (rate).

8 hrsp time & l/2

2 2/3 hrs. time & 1/2 fox call 7 hrsa time & l/2 total 17 2i3 hrs. tire & Z/2 ( r ate ) .



The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence., finds that

The carrier or carriers and the ernploye or employer involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and erlploye within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193'+.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



This dispute arises out of an action by the Carrier when, on October 15, 1975, a derailment blocked the main line at Chittan:o, Wisconsin. After a survey of the situation, the Carrier determined it needed the equipment of an outside contractor -- the situation and lack of equipment of its own to acccgnplish such work prompting such decision. It thus called in an outside contractor, concurrent i~rith dispatching a contingent of its wreck force frown its Superior, Wisconsin, facility. A crew of Sectionmen was also dispatched to the. site to restore the trackage which had been rendered impassible by the derailment. Work to conrolete rerailment and repair the tracks covered about 30 hours. Claim is initiated by six members of the Superior wreck crew who were not called for this assignment.

The Organization contends violation of Rules 28, 94, 97 and 98 which it claims reserves such work to members of the wreck crew and past practice by which the Carrier has used its own equipment and wreck crew to perform such work exclusively; it admits such practice has been altered in "recent years".
Foam l Page 3

Award No. 8032
Docket No. 7785
2- SOO-CM-179


be handled, the emergency situation of the wreck (i.e. blocking the main
line, its assessment of a lack of its own equilmnent to handle this particular
situation and its adherence to those Rules directly applicable to wrecks
Rules 97 and 98. In particular, Role 98 requires that a "sufficient number"
of wrecking crew meznbex's be assigned where -- as here -- the derailment -
occurs outside the yard limits. The Carrier points out that reference to
wrecking work is absent frcxu other cited rules., and that, thus, it is not
necessarily reserved to the caiman craft.

We find no basis to sustain the Organization's claim herein. The Carrier clearly made jud_Q;n.ent ox a need. of outside equa_pznent, the record supports the claizn that the situation required pxo>7rpt action and, per Rule 98, a crew from the wreck forces was on the job to support the outside Contractor and to perform :its regular duties as WeLI.

k W A R D

Claims are denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONA.h RAILROAD ADJTJS'PJ,,'111T BOARD

By Order of Second Division


~o r~,rie Bxiasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated a~ Chicago> Illinois., this 8th daycf August 1979.